Management of the open abdomen: A systematic review with meta-analysis and practice management guideline from the Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma

ICU imperatives in open abdomen management after trauma or emergency surgery

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

This review is both timely and relevant as the open abdomen approach to manage injury, emergency general surgery (EGS) conditions, as well as secondary intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) and the abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS) remain prevalent throughout ICUs.

RECENT FINDINGS

IAH is not limited to those with injury or EGS conditions, as it is increasingly recognized following cardiac surgery as well as cardiac transplantation. IAH monitoring techniques benefit from technological advances including noninvasive devices. Time to primary fascial closure (PFC) is a key determinant of patient-centered outcomes, with worse outcomes in those with delayed or failed closure attempts. Visceral edema avoidance or mitigation techniques remain controversial. Nutrition support and its impact on the gastrointestinal microbiome appear to influence infection risk and anastomotic integrity. Team-based approaches to successful as well as failed open abdomen management help optimize outcomes.

SUMMARY

These findings bear broad implications for intensive care medicine clinicians who care for open abdomen patients, as they address resuscitation, intra-abdominal pressure monitoring, and nutrition support all of which influence the likelihood of achieving PFC - a key goal regardless of whether the abdomen was initially left open after injury, EGS, or intestinal ischemia management.

Management of Acute Wounds-Expert Panel Consensus Statement

Significance: The Wound Healing Foundation recognized the need for consensus-based unbiased recommendations for the treatment of wounds. As a first step, a consensus on the treatment of chronic wounds was developed and published in 2022. The current publication on acute wounds represents the second step in this process. Acute wounds may result from any number of conditions, including burns, military and combat operations, and trauma to specific areas of the body. The management of acute wounds requires timely and evidence-driven intervention to achieve optimal clinical outcomes. This consensus statement provides the clinician with the necessary foundational approaches to the causes, diagnosis, and therapeutic management of acute wounds. Presented in a structured format, this is a useful guide for clinicians and learners in all patient care settings. Recent Advances: Recent advances in the management of acute wounds have centered on stabilization and treatment in the military and combat environment. Specifically, advancements in hemostasis, resuscitation, and the mitigation of infection risk through timely initiation of antibiotics and avoidance of high-pressure irrigation in contaminated soft tissue injury. Critical Issues: Critical issues include infection control, pain management, and the unique considerations for the management of acute wounds in pediatric patients. Future Directions: Future directions include new approaches to preventing the progression and conversion of burns through the use of specific gel formulations. Additionally, the use of three-dimensional bioprinting and photo-modulation for reconstruction is a promising area for continued discovery.

Early placement of a non-invasive, pressure-regulated, fascial reapproximation device improves reduction of the fascial gap in open abdomens: a retrospective cohort study

Background

Since current fascial traction methods involve invasive procedures, they are generally employed late in the management of the open abdomen (OA). This study aimed to evaluate early versus late placement of a non-invasive, pressure-regulated device for fascial reapproximation and gap reduction in OA patients.

Methods

The study included all patients who had the abdominal fascia intentionally left open after damage control operation for trauma and emergency general surgery and were managed with the device in an academic hospital between January 1, 2020, and December 31, 2023. Time of device placement in relation to the end of index laparotomy was defined as early (≤24 hours) versus late (>24 hours). Time-related mid-incisional width reduction of the fascial gap and fascial closure were assessed using descriptive and linear regression analysis.

Results

There was a significantly higher percent reduction in the fascial gap at the midpoint of the laparotomies in the early (≤24 hours) AbClo placement group compared with the late (>24 hours) AbClo placement group, respectively, median 76% versus 43%, p<0.001. Linear regression adjusting for body mass index and the number of takebacks indicated that fascial approximation was 22% higher for early placement (β=0.22; CI 0.12, 0.33, p<0.001). Primary myofascial closure rate with early (≤24 hours) application of the device was 98% versus 85% with late application.

Conclusion

Early non-invasive application of the device (≤24 hours) after the initial laparotomy resulted in greater reduction of the fascial gap and higher primary fascial closure rate compared with late placement (>24 hours). Early non-invasive intervention could prevent abdominal wall myofascial retraction in OA patients.

Level of evidence

IV.

Damage Control Laparotomy and Management of the Open Abdomen

Management of the open abdomen has been used for decades by general surgeons. Techniques have evolved over those decades to improve control of infection, fluid loss, and improve the ability to close the abdomen to avoid hernia formation. The authors explore the history, indications, and techniques of open abdomen management in multiple settings. The most important considerations in open abdomen management include the reason for leaving the abdomen open, prevention and mitigation of ongoing organ dysfunction, and eventual plans for abdominal closure.

Entero-Cutaneous and Entero-Atmospheric Fistulas: Insights into Management Using Negative Pressure Wound Therapy

Enteric fistulas are a common problem in gastrointestinal tract surgery and remain associated with significant mortality rates, due to complications such as sepsis, malnutrition, and electrolyte imbalance. The increasingly widespread use of open abdomen techniques for the initial treatment of abdominal sepsis and trauma has led to the observation of so-called entero-atmospheric fistulas. Because of their clinical complexity, the proper management of enteric fistula requires a multidisciplinary team. The main goal of the treatment is the closure of enteric fistula, but also mortality reduction and improvement of patients' quality of life are fundamental. Successful management of patients with enteric fistula requires the establishment of controlled drainage, management of sepsis, prevention of fluid and electrolyte depletion, protection of the skin, and provision of adequate nutrition. Many of these fistulas will heal spontaneously within 4 to 6 weeks of conservative management. If closure is not accomplished after this time point, surgery is indicated. Despite advances in perioperative care and nutritional support, the mortality remains in the range of 15 to 30%. In more recent years, the use of negative pressure wound therapy for the resolution of enteric fistulas improved the outcomes, so patients can be successfully treated with a non-operative approach. In this review, our intent is to highlight the most important aspects of negative pressure wound therapy in the treatment of patients with enterocutaneous or entero-atmospheric fistulas.

Optimal tentative abdominal closure for open abdomen: a multicenter retrospective observational study (OPTITAC study)

BACKGROUND

Primary fascia closure is often difficult following an open abdomen (OA). While negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) is recommended to enhance successful primary fascia closure, the optimal methods and degree of negative pressure remain unclear. This study aimed to elucidate optimal methods of NPWT as a tentative abdominal closure for OA to achieve primary abdominal fascia closure.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A multicenter, retrospective, cohort study of adults who survived OA greater than 48 h was conducted in 12 institutions between 2010 and 2022. The achievement of primary fascia closure and incidence of enteroatmospheric fistula were examined based on methods (homemade, superficial NPWT kit, or open-abdomen kit) or degrees of negative pressure (<50, 50-100, or >100 mmHg). A generalized estimating equation was used to adjust for age, BMI, comorbidities, etiology for laparotomy requiring OA, vital signs, transfusion, severity of critical illness, and institutional characteristics.

RESULTS

Of the 279 included patients, 252 achieved primary fascia closure. A higher degree of negative pressure (>100 mmHg) was associated with fewer primary fascia closures than less than 50 mmHg [OR, 0.18 (95% CI: 0.50-0.69), P =0.012] and with more frequent enteroatmospheric fistula [OR, 13.83 (95% CI: 2.30-82.93)]. The methods of NPWT were not associated with successful primary fascia closure. However, the use of the open-abdomen kit was related to a lower incidence of enteroatmospheric fistula [OR, 0.02 (95% CI: 0.00-0.50)].

CONCLUSION

High negative pressure (>100 mmHg) should be avoided in NPWT during tentative abdominal closure for OA.

Damage control surgery in emergency general surgery: What you need to know

ABSTRACT

Damage-control surgery (DCS) is a strategy adopted to limit initial operative interventions in the unstable surgical patient, delaying definitive repairs and abdominal wall closure until physiologic parameters have improved. Although this concept of "physiology over anatomy" was initially described in the management of severely injured trauma patients, the approaches of DCS have become common in the management of nontraumatic intra-abdominal emergencies.While the utilization of damage-control methods in emergency general surgery (EGS) is controversial, numerous studies have demonstrated improved outcomes, making DCS an essential technique for all acute care surgeons. Following a brief history of DCS and its indications in the EGS patient, the phases of DCS will be discussed including an in-depth review of preoperative resuscitation, techniques for intra-abdominal source control, temporary abdominal closure, intensive care unit (ICU) management of the open abdomen, and strategies to improve abdominal wall closure.

The open abdomen in trauma, acute care, and vascular and endovascular surgery: comprehensive, expert, narrative review

BACKGROUND

The open abdomen is an innovation that greatly improved surgical understanding of damage control, temporary abdominal closure, staged abdominal reconstruction, viscera and enteric fistula care, and abdominal wall reconstruction. This article provides an evidence-informed, expert, comprehensive narrative review of the open abdomen in trauma, acute care, and vascular and endovascular surgery.

METHODS

A group of 12 international trauma, acute care, and vascular and endovascular surgery experts were invited to review current literature and important concepts surrounding the open abdomen.

RESULTS

The open abdomen may be classified using validated systems developed by a working group in 2009 and modified by the World Society of the Abdominal Compartment Syndrome-The Abdominal Compartment Society in 2013. It may be indicated in major trauma, intra-abdominal sepsis, vascular surgical emergencies, and severe acute pancreatitis; to facilitate second look laparotomy or avoid or treat abdominal compartment syndrome; and when the abdominal wall cannot be safely closed. Temporary abdominal closure and staged abdominal reconstruction methods include a mesh/sheet, transabdominal wall dynamic fascial traction, negative pressure wound therapy, and hybrid negative pressure wound therapy and dynamic fascial traction. This last method likely has the highest primary fascial closure rates. Direct peritoneal resuscitation is currently an experimental strategy developed to improve primary fascial closure rates and reduce complications in those with an open abdomen. Primary fascial closure rates may be improved by early return to the operating room; limiting use of crystalloid fluids during the surgical interval; and preventing and/or treating intra-abdominal hypertension, enteric fistulae, and intra-abdominal collections after surgery. The majority of failures of primary fascial closure and enteroatmospheric fistula formation may be prevented using effective temporary abdominal closure techniques, providing appropriate resuscitation fluids and nutritional support, and closing the abdomen as early as possible.

CONCLUSION

Subsequent stages of the innovation of the open abdomen will likely involve the design and conduct of prospective studies to evaluate appropriate indications for its use and effectiveness and safety of the above components of open abdomen management.

The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial

BACKGROUND

Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with negative peritoneal pressure therapy (NPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and attenuate the systemic damage from SCIAS, although there are definite risks of leaving the abdomen open whenever it might possibly be closed. This potential therapeutic paradigm is the rationale being assessed in the Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL trial) ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ). Initially, the COOL trial received Industry sponsorship; however, this funding mandated the use of a specific trademarked and expensive NPPT device in half of the patients allocated to the intervention (open) arm. In August 2022, the 3 M/Acelity Corporation without consultation but within the terms of the contract canceled the financial support of the trial. Although creating financial difficulty, there is now no restriction on specific NPPT devices and removing a cost-prohibitive intervention creates an opportunity to expand the COOL trial to a truly global basis. This document describes the evolution of the COOL trial, with a focus on future opportunities for global growth of the study.

METHODS

The COOL trial is the largest prospective randomized controlled trial examining the random allocation of SCIAS patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or the use of the OA with an application of an NPPT dressing. Patients are eligible if they have free uncontained intraperitoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR severely adverse predicted clinical outcomes. The primary outcome is intended to definitively inform global practice by conclusively evaluating 90-day survival. Initial recruitment has been lower than hoped but satisfactory, and the COOL steering committee and trial investigators intend with increased global support to continue enrollment until recruitment ensures a definitive answer.

DISCUSSION

OA is mandated in many cases of SCIAS such as the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome associated with closure, or a planned second look as for example part of "damage control"; however, improved source control (locally and systemically) is the most uncertain indication for an OA. The COOL trial seeks to expand potential sites and proceed with the evaluation of NPPT agnostic to device, to properly examine the hypothesis that this treatment attenuates systemic damage and improves survival. This approach will not affect internal validity and should improve the external validity of any observed results of the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National Institutes of Health ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ).

The unrestricted global effort to complete the COOL trial

BACKGROUND

Severe complicated intra-abdominal sepsis (SCIAS) has an increasing incidence with mortality rates over 80% in some settings. Mortality typically results from disruption of the gastrointestinal tract, progressive and self-perpetuating bio-mediator generation, systemic inflammation, and multiple organ failure. A further therapeutic option may be open abdomen (OA) management with negative peritoneal pressure therapy (NPPT) to remove inflammatory ascites and attenuate the systemic damage from SCIAS, although there are definite risks of leaving the abdomen open whenever it might possibly be closed. This potential therapeutic paradigm is the rationale being assessed in the Closed Or Open after Laparotomy (COOL trial) ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ). Initially, the COOL trial received Industry sponsorship; however, this funding mandated the use of a specific trademarked and expensive NPPT device in half of the patients allocated to the intervention (open) arm. In August 2022, the 3 M/Acelity Corporation without consultation but within the terms of the contract canceled the financial support of the trial. Although creating financial difficulty, there is now no restriction on specific NPPT devices and removing a cost-prohibitive intervention creates an opportunity to expand the COOL trial to a truly global basis. This document describes the evolution of the COOL trial, with a focus on future opportunities for global growth of the study.

METHODS

The COOL trial is the largest prospective randomized controlled trial examining the random allocation of SCIAS patients intra-operatively to either formal closure of the fascia or the use of the OA with an application of an NPPT dressing. Patients are eligible if they have free uncontained intraperitoneal contamination and physiologic derangements exemplified by septic shock OR severely adverse predicted clinical outcomes. The primary outcome is intended to definitively inform global practice by conclusively evaluating 90-day survival. Initial recruitment has been lower than hoped but satisfactory, and the COOL steering committee and trial investigators intend with increased global support to continue enrollment until recruitment ensures a definitive answer.

DISCUSSION

OA is mandated in many cases of SCIAS such as the risk of abdominal compartment syndrome associated with closure, or a planned second look as for example part of "damage control"; however, improved source control (locally and systemically) is the most uncertain indication for an OA. The COOL trial seeks to expand potential sites and proceed with the evaluation of NPPT agnostic to device, to properly examine the hypothesis that this treatment attenuates systemic damage and improves survival. This approach will not affect internal validity and should improve the external validity of any observed results of the intervention.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

National Institutes of Health ( https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03163095 ).

The temporary abdominal closure techniques used for trauma patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Purpose

The choice of temporary abdominal closure (TAC) method affects the prognosis of trauma patients. Previous studies on TAC are challenging to extrapolate due to data heterogeneity. We aimed to conduct a systematic review and comparison of various TAC techniques.

Methods

We accessed web-based databases for studies on the clinical outcomes of TAC techniques. Recognized techniques, including negative-pressure wound therapy with or without continuous fascial traction, skin tension, meshes, Bogota bags, and Wittman patches, were classified via a method of closure such as skin-only closure vs. patch closure vs. vacuum closure; and via dynamics of treatment like static therapy (ST) vs. dynamic therapy (DT). Study endpoints included in-hospital mortality, definitive fascial closure (DFC) rate, and incidence of intraabdominal complications.

Results

Among 1,065 identified studies, 37 papers comprising 2,582 trauma patients met the inclusion criteria. The vacuum closure group showed the lowest mortality (13%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 6%-19%) and a moderate DFC rate (74%; 95% CI, 67%-82%). The skin-only closure group showed the highest mortality (35%; 95% CI, 7%-63%) and the highest DFC rate (96%; 95% CI, 93%-99%). In the second group analysis, DT showed better outcomes than ST for all endpoints.

Conclusion

Vacuum closure was favorable in terms of in-hospital mortality, ventral hernia, and peritoneal abscess. Skin-only closure might be an alternative TAC method in carefully selected groups. DT may provide the best results; however, further studies are needed.

The variable role of damage control laparotomy over 19 years of trauma care in Pennsylvania

BACKGROUND

Damage control laparotomy emphasizes physiologic stabilization of critically injured patients and allows staged surgical management. However, there is little consensus on the optimal criteria for damage control laparotomy. We examined variability between centers and over time in Pennsylvania.

METHODS

We analyzed the Pennsylvania Trauma Outcomes Study data between 2000 and 2018, excluding centers performing <10 laparotomies/year. Laparotomy was defined using International Classification of Diseases codes, and damage control laparotomy was defined by a code for "reopening of recent laparotomy" or a return to the operating room >4 hours from index laparotomy that was not unplanned. We examined trends over time and by center. Multivariable logistic regression models were developed to predict both damage control laparotomy and mortality, generate observed:expected ratios, and identify outliers for each. We compared risk-adjusted mortality rates to center-level damage control laparotomy rates.

RESULTS

In total, 18,896 laparotomies from 22 centers were analyzed; 3,549 damage control laparotomies were performed (18.8% of all laparotomies). The use of damage control laparotomy in Pennsylvania varied from 13.9% to 22.8% over time. There was wide variation in center-level use of damage control laparotomy, from 11.1% to 29.4%, despite adjustment. Factors associated with damage control laparotomy included injury severity and admission vital signs. Center identity improved the model as demonstrated by likelihood ratio test (P < .001), suggesting differences in center-level practices. There was minimal correlation between center-level damage control laparotomy use and mortality.

CONCLUSION

There is wide center-level variation in the use of damage control laparotomy among centers, despite adjustment for patient factors. Damage control laparotomy is both resource intensive and highly morbid; regional resources should be allocated to address this substantial practice variation to optimize damage control laparotomy use.